Pennsylvania

[ixnay]

Took me all of five seconds–neatly summarized at the bottom of the page.

Former Designations:   
PA 28 (1951 - 1961):  Exit 65 to Exit 69C
PA 80 (1951 - 1961):  Exit 78B to Exit 80
Alternate US 19 (1960 - 1961):  Exit 69C to Exit 70C
I-70 (1960 - 1964):  Exit 64A to I-76/PA Turnpike
PA 60 (1962 - 2009):  Exit 57 to Exit 60
I-79 (1964 - 1972):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
I-76 (1964 - 1973):  Exit 70C to I-76/PA Turnpike
PA 18 (1968 - 1978):  Exit 1C to Exit 2
I-76 (1972 - 1973):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
I-279 (1973 - 2009):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
PA Toll 60 (1991 - 2008):  Exit 15 to Exit 17
PA 60 (1992 - 2009):  Exit 50 to Exit 57
PA Toll 60 (1992 - 2008):  Exit 17 to Exit 31
PA Turnpike 60 (2008 - 2009):  Exit 15 to Exit 31

I rarely scroll down that far on those pages, thus those parts are not on my radar.

ixnay

Today we learned that  needles fall to the bottom of haystacks.

ixnay

[VTGoose]

Took me all of five seconds–neatly summarized at the bottom of the page.

Former Designations:   
PA 28 (1951 - 1961):  Exit 65 to Exit 69C
PA 80 (1951 - 1961):  Exit 78B to Exit 80
Alternate US 19 (1960 - 1961):  Exit 69C to Exit 70C
I-70 (1960 - 1964):  Exit 64A to I-76/PA Turnpike
PA 60 (1962 - 2009):  Exit 57 to Exit 60
I-79 (1964 - 1972):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
I-76 (1964 - 1973):  Exit 70C to I-76/PA Turnpike
PA 18 (1968 - 1978):  Exit 1C to Exit 2
I-76 (1972 - 1973):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
I-279 (1973 - 2009):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
PA Toll 60 (1991 - 2008):  Exit 15 to Exit 17
PA 60 (1992 - 2009):  Exit 50 to Exit 57
PA Toll 60 (1992 - 2008):  Exit 17 to Exit 31
PA Turnpike 60 (2008 - 2009):  Exit 15 to Exit 31

I rarely scroll down that far on those pages, thus those parts are not on my radar.

ixnay

Today we learned that  needles fall to the bottom of haystacks.

Today I learned I had a mis-spent youth -- all those names for highways that we just called the "Parkway East", "Parkway West" (or just "the Parkway" in Moon Township), and the "Beaver Valley Expressway" (when it only went as far as bustling Vanport). Those of us who grew up in Moon still mourn the loss of White Swan Park to the new road.

[PAHighways]

And confuse Allegheny Countians even more?      East of (current) I-79 that part alone has been I-70, 76, 79, 279, as well as 376 at various times.

Pittsburghers just call it "the Parkway" no matter its route designations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_376

I'm partial to this page.

I tried it, but looking for the Parkway's signing history on that page was like looking for a needle in a haystack.  Sorry, pal.

ixnay

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Took me all of five seconds–neatly summarized at the bottom of the page.

Former Designations:   
PA 28 (1951 - 1961):  Exit 65 to Exit 69C
PA 80 (1951 - 1961):  Exit 78B to Exit 80
Alternate US 19 (1960 - 1961):  Exit 69C to Exit 70C
I-70 (1960 - 1964):  Exit 64A to I-76/PA Turnpike
PA 60 (1962 - 2009):  Exit 57 to Exit 60
I-79 (1964 - 1972):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
I-76 (1964 - 1973):  Exit 70C to I-76/PA Turnpike
PA 18 (1968 - 1978):  Exit 1C to Exit 2
I-76 (1972 - 1973):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
I-279 (1973 - 2009):  Exit 64A to Exit 70C
PA Toll 60 (1991 - 2008):  Exit 15 to Exit 17
PA 60 (1992 - 2009):  Exit 50 to Exit 57
PA Toll 60 (1992 - 2008):  Exit 17 to Exit 31
PA Turnpike 60 (2008 - 2009):  Exit 15 to Exit 31

Thank you, Brian.

I didn't think it was hard to find in that highlighted section of quick facts all these years.

Kids today.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I-80 Project: Yea or Nay? https://www.poconorecord.com/news/20200216/proposed-i-80-expansion-nears-final-design

[DJStephens]

Remember 80 in the Stroudsburg area as being already antiquated in the early / mid eighties.  Forty years later, can only guess how bad it's become.   

[interstate73]

Drive through that stretch all the time between home and school and its always the crappiest, most unreliable stretch. Woefully undercapacity, jams at all times of the day, frequent crashes due to the poor design and constant traffic that jam things up even worse, and no useful alternatives that wouldn't also be jammed if there's a problem on 80... really there needs to be 3 lanes (or a freeway-standard bypass) from Exit 4 in NJ to the 380 split, but I understand the topography and development would make that difficult-to-impossible, so anything else that could be done at all would be a vast improvement.

[cpzilliacus]

More I-78 upgrades set to begin this spring:


https://www.readingeagle.com/news/local/penndot-s-million-upgrades-on-i--and-route-starting/article_71252042-4db4-11ea-866c-9bd7894c47f2.html

The images here neatly sum up so much of what is wrong with older freeway corridors in Pennsylvania (examples include much of the "free" parts of I-70 and I-83 between the Maryland border and PA-581.

[DJStephens]

More I-78 upgrades set to begin this spring:


https://www.readingeagle.com/news/local/penndot-s-million-upgrades-on-i--and-route-starting/article_71252042-4db4-11ea-866c-9bd7894c47f2.html

The images here neatly sum up so much of what is wrong with older freeway corridors in Pennsylvania (examples include much of the "free" parts of I-70 and I-83 between the Maryland border and PA-581.

Article definitely written by an author without a construction/engineering background.  Appears simply an additional lane will be added to the crossing, from the description.   What about an inner shoulder?  Isn't that required, when a cross-section goes to three or more lanes??  Maybe the best solution would have been to construct a new span, on each side of the existing one - with "retro" design on the substructures to match the old one.   Then demolish the original 1955 bridge.  Would give a decent median.   A lot of the older Interstates in Penn seem to have been modeled after the 1940 Penn Turnpike.  Very little in terms of median separation.  70 and 78 mainly come to mind.  And 80 in Stroudsburg.  And 276 and 476 Northeast Extension come to think of it.   Have to wonder, a lot could have been reconstructed by building all new mainlines to the outside of the original narrow alignments in many places.   Not all, of course, due to topography or dense adjoining development.   

[Beltway]

So are there plans to widen I-80 thru the Delaware Water Gap area, to 6 lanes between I-380 and where 6 lanes starts in New Jersey?

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

So are there plans to widen I-80 thru the Delaware Water Gap area, to 6 lanes between I-380 and where 6 lanes starts in New Jersey?

It was said that after the Stroudsburg section gets finished, they will start on the Scotrun area, which is currently in design. I, for one, would like to see Exit 302 rehabilitated, as there is SO MUCH WEAVING coming between 33 NB and 80 WB to 611.

[Roadsguy]

So are there plans to widen I-80 thru the Delaware Water Gap area, to 6 lanes between I-380 and where 6 lanes starts in New Jersey?

I remember seeing a project website a long time ago for widening through the Delaware Water Gap and over the river for six continuous lanes from Stroudsburg into New Jersey, but I can't find any current official mention of it. It's essentially disappeared.

[Alps]

So are there plans to widen I-80 thru the Delaware Water Gap area, to 6 lanes between I-380 and where 6 lanes starts in New Jersey?

I remember seeing a project website a long time ago for widening through the Delaware Water Gap and over the river for six continuous lanes from Stroudsburg into New Jersey, but I can't find any current official mention of it. It's essentially disappeared.

It will never be widened in the DWG. That's a protected area.

[J N Winkler]

Article definitely written by an author without a construction/engineering background.  Appears simply an additional lane will be added to the crossing, from the description.   What about an inner shoulder?  Isn't that required, when a cross-section goes to three or more lanes??

The article definitely shows no sign of having been written by someone with an awareness of the technical aspects of the project, but fortunately the plans are available through ECMS (project number is 93494).  The upgraded bridge will have 12 ft right shoulders and a median of 11 ft 5 1/2 in, the latter being wide enough to accommodate shoulders of about 4 1/2 ft, assuming Jersey barrier base width of 2 ft.

For Interstate shoulders, the base standard is 4 ft left/10 ft right.  I don't know if this part of I-78 has enough truck traffic to attract 12 ft shoulders both sides.

Maybe the best solution would have been to construct a new span, on each side of the existing one - with "retro" design on the substructures to match the old one.   Then demolish the original 1955 bridge.  Would give a decent median.   A lot of the older Interstates in Penn seem to have been modeled after the 1940 Penn Turnpike.  Very little in terms of median separation.  70 and 78 mainly come to mind.  And 80 in Stroudsburg.  And 276 and 476 Northeast Extension come to think of it.   Have to wonder, a lot could have been reconstructed by building all new mainlines to the outside of the original narrow alignments in many places.   Not all, of course, due to topography or dense adjoining development.

I wouldn't want to be the ROW agent dealing with the people living on the hill just to the north of I-78 on the east bank of the Schuylkill River--those are $250,000 houses.  I can certainly see the case for a wide median, but I don't see PennDOT going for it at the bridge absent a decision to rebuild all free Interstates in Pennsylvania with wide medians except at locations of special difficulty.

[Beltway]

So are there plans to widen I-80 thru the Delaware Water Gap area, to 6 lanes between I-380 and where 6 lanes starts in New Jersey?

I remember seeing a project website a long time ago for widening through the Delaware Water Gap and over the river for six continuous lanes from Stroudsburg into New Jersey, but I can't find any current official mention of it. It's essentially disappeared.

It will never be widened in the DWG. That's a protected area.

Then that would mean a relocation.  Someone mapped this out I think back on m.t.r.

About 10 miles of relocated highway to the south.

[Beltway]

I wouldn't want to be the ROW agent dealing with the people living on the hill just to the north of I-78 on the east bank of the Schuylkill River--those are $250,000 houses.  I can certainly see the case for a wide median, but I don't see PennDOT going for it at the bridge absent a decision to rebuild all free Interstates in Pennsylvania with wide medians except at locations of special difficulty.

Depends on the definition of "wide median."

The 26 feet used on the Turnpike 6-lane reconstruction projects is a fully modern design.  In a rural area I would prefer at least 60 feet of graded median, but with 26 feet you get two 12-foot left shoulders and 2 feet for a concrete median barrier.

[Rothman]

So are there plans to widen I-80 thru the Delaware Water Gap area, to 6 lanes between I-380 and where 6 lanes starts in New Jersey?

I remember seeing a project website a long time ago for widening through the Delaware Water Gap and over the river for six continuous lanes from Stroudsburg into New Jersey, but I can't find any current official mention of it. It's essentially disappeared.

It will never be widened in the DWG. That's a protected area.

Then that would mean a relocation.  Someone mapped this out I think back on m.t.r.

About 10 miles of relocated highway to the south.

I don't know if widening is out of the question, especially with safety concerns.  Road projects in NPS sites are common.

Moving it south would not be possible, since the NRA and protected river extends a long way down.

[J N Winkler]

Depends on the definition of "wide median."

The 26 feet used on the Turnpike 6-lane reconstruction projects is a fully modern design.  In a rural area I would prefer at least 60 feet of graded median, but with 26 feet you get two 12-foot left shoulders and 2 feet for a concrete median barrier.

DJStephens (if I understand correctly) is based in the Las Cruces area, so I was thinking in terms of median width of at least 60 ft, which is pretty much the norm in the intermountain West.  I think that is a nonstarter in Pennsylvania, though MoDOT's preferred alternative for the widening of rural I-70 in Missouri (unfunded for over two decades and possibly permanently unfundable) involves a radical expansion of median width in rolling terrain.

What PennDOT is actually building does expand the available shoulder width as well as the traffic capacity.

[Alps]

Article definitely written by an author without a construction/engineering background.  Appears simply an additional lane will be added to the crossing, from the description.   What about an inner shoulder?  Isn't that required, when a cross-section goes to three or more lanes??

The article definitely shows no sign of having been written by someone with an awareness of the technical aspects of the project, but fortunately the plans are available through ECMS (project number is 93494).  The upgraded bridge will have 12 ft right shoulders and a median of 11 ft 5 1/2 in, the latter being wide enough to accommodate shoulders of about 4 1/2 ft, assuming Jersey barrier base width of 2 ft.

For Interstate shoulders, the base standard is 4 ft left/10 ft right.  I don't know if this part of I-78 has enough truck traffic to attract 12 ft shoulders both sides.

Maybe the best solution would have been to construct a new span, on each side of the existing one - with "retro" design on the substructures to match the old one.   Then demolish the original 1955 bridge.  Would give a decent median.   A lot of the older Interstates in Penn seem to have been modeled after the 1940 Penn Turnpike.  Very little in terms of median separation.  70 and 78 mainly come to mind.  And 80 in Stroudsburg.  And 276 and 476 Northeast Extension come to think of it.   Have to wonder, a lot could have been reconstructed by building all new mainlines to the outside of the original narrow alignments in many places.   Not all, of course, due to topography or dense adjoining development.

I wouldn't want to be the ROW agent dealing with the people living on the hill just to the north of I-78 on the east bank of the Schuylkill River--those are $250,000 houses.  I can certainly see the case for a wide median, but I don't see PennDOT going for it at the bridge absent a decision to rebuild all free Interstates in Pennsylvania with wide medians except at locations of special difficulty.

I would think I-78 warrants 12' shoulders based on the truck traffic I always see there. Also, in this area, $250,000 is nothing.

[Gnutella]

More I-78 upgrades set to begin this spring:


https://www.readingeagle.com/news/local/penndot-s-million-upgrades-on-i--and-route-starting/article_71252042-4db4-11ea-866c-9bd7894c47f2.html

The images here neatly sum up so much of what is wrong with older freeway corridors in Pennsylvania (examples include much of the "free" parts of I-70 and I-83 between the Maryland border and PA-581.

Speaking of upgrading substandard Interstate segments, Google Maps shows a lot of the work being done on I-70 south of Pittsburgh:


1. Here's the upgraded segment of the I-70/I-79 concurrency between the I-70/I-79 west/north junction (Exit 18) and the Murtland Avenue interchange (Exit 19).

2. Here's the reconstruction and six-lane expansion of the I-70/I-79 concurrency in Washington, between the Murtland Avenue interchange (Exit 19) and the I-70/I-79 east/south junction (Exit 21).

3. Here's the reconstruction between the I-70/I-79 east/south junction and the Eighty Four interchange (Exit 25), including improvements in curve geometry.

4. Here's the upgraded PA 519/Eighty Four/Glyde interchange (Exit 25).

5. Here's the upgraded underpass at the Dunningsville interchange (Exit 27).

6. Here's the upgraded overpass at the Kammerer interchange (Exit 31).

7. Here's the upgraded Bentleyville interchange (Exits 32A-B).

8. Here's the upgraded PA 481/Monongahela/Centerville interchange (Exit 35).

9. Here's the upgraded Smithton interchange (Exit 49), which, aside from the I-70/I-79 east/south junction flyover ramp (Exit 21), was the first improvement on this segment of I-70.

10. Here's the PA 31/West Newton/Mt. Pleasant interchange (Exit 51) upgrade in progress, with improvements in curve geometry to the east and west of the interchange.

11. Here's the upgraded and combined New Stanton/Hunker interchange (Exit 57).

12. Here's the upgraded segment between the New Stanton/Hunker interchange (Exit 57) and the Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange (Exit 58).


One thing you might notice is that the earliest interchange upgrades used asphalt, but recent projects have used concrete.

On deck are the following improvements:


1. The Speers interchange (Exit 39) overpass replacement (currently in final design; construction expected to begin in 2022).

2. The North Belle Vernon interchange (Exit 42) overpass replacement (project timeline TBD)

2. The Arnold City interchange (Exit 44) and adjacent segments of the highway (currently in final design; construction expected to begin in 2021).

3. The PA 51/Pittsburgh/Uniontown interchange (Exit 46) and adjacent segments of the highway (currently in environmental clearance; construction expected to begin in 2022).

4. The Yukon and Madison interchanges (Exits 53-54), and the segment of the highway east of the Madison interchange (Exit 54) all the way to the recently upgraded New Stanton/Hunker interchange (Exit 57) (construction imminent).


In just a few more years, I-70 will have been reconstructed to modern Interstate standards from the I-79 north junction (Exit 18) to the PA 519/Eighty Four/Glyde interchange (Exit 25), and from the Smithton Hi-Level Bridge (MM 48) to the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Exit 58), for a total of 17 miles. It appears that the focus of the construction will gradually move its way from east to west, with the segment between the PA 519/Eighty Four/Glyde interchange (Exit 25) and the Speers-Belle Vernon Bridge (MM 40) being the last to be reconstructed.

[DJStephens]

Depends on the definition of "wide median."

The 26 feet used on the Turnpike 6-lane reconstruction projects is a fully modern design.  In a rural area I would prefer at least 60 feet of graded median, but with 26 feet you get two 12-foot left shoulders and 2 feet for a concrete median barrier.

DJStephens (if I understand correctly) is based in the Las Cruces area, so I was thinking in terms of median width of at least 60 ft, which is pretty much the norm in the intermountain West.  I think that is a nonstarter in Pennsylvania, though MoDOT's preferred alternative for the widening of rural I-70 in Missouri (unfunded for over two decades and possibly permanently unfundable) involves a radical expansion of median width in rolling terrain.

What PennDOT is actually building does expand the available shoulder width as well as the traffic capacity.

Was under the impression FHWA requires a full left shoulder on cross sections of three or more lanes in one direction.  Not that it is dependent on the amount of truck traffic.   Have viewed exceptions of course - the "widening" of Interstate 10 in East El Paso, they seem to have gotten around that requirement somehow. Guessing there is a 3-4 foot distance to the left (the CBR/Jersey Barrier), and the mainlines appear to be 10 or 11 feet wide (McRae to Zaragosa).   The tex-dot in El Paso certainly seems to have struggled with the growth in the area, despite having plenty of funding in the last decade or so.   

[jeffandnicole]

Depends on the definition of "wide median."

The 26 feet used on the Turnpike 6-lane reconstruction projects is a fully modern design.  In a rural area I would prefer at least 60 feet of graded median, but with 26 feet you get two 12-foot left shoulders and 2 feet for a concrete median barrier.

DJStephens (if I understand correctly) is based in the Las Cruces area, so I was thinking in terms of median width of at least 60 ft, which is pretty much the norm in the intermountain West.  I think that is a nonstarter in Pennsylvania, though MoDOT's preferred alternative for the widening of rural I-70 in Missouri (unfunded for over two decades and possibly permanently unfundable) involves a radical expansion of median width in rolling terrain.

What PennDOT is actually building does expand the available shoulder width as well as the traffic capacity.

Was under the impression FHWA requires a full left shoulder on cross sections of three or more lanes in one direction.  Not that it is dependent on the amount of truck traffic.   Have viewed exceptions of course - the "widening" of Interstate 10 in East El Paso, they seem to have gotten around that requirement somehow. Guessing there is a 3-4 foot distance to the left (the CBR/Jersey Barrier), and the mainlines appear to be 10 or 11 feet wide (McRae to Zaragosa).   The tex-dot in El Paso certainly seems to have struggled with the growth in the area, despite having plenty of funding in the last decade or so.   

Exceptions exist for various reasons, probably mostly due to space issues. 

When NJDOT worked on I-295, they widened the left shoulder to a full left shoulder in some areas, but not others, probably based on traffic volumes.  Of course, it's all relative: The 3 lane portion of 295 where a full paved left shoulder wasn't provided is lower in volume to other areas of I-295 where one was added, but traffic volumes would probably still dictate a 4 or 5 lane wide section in other areas of the country!

I-76 WB in NJ is 6 lanes wide, with only a full right shoulder and no left shoulder whatsoever. https://goo.gl/maps/ULWvKcVkVvWnkd2L7

So as long as the states can justify why a full shoulder isn't necessary, space-prohibitive or is cost-prohibitive, the feds are willing to allow exceptions.

[Bitmapped]

Depends on the definition of "wide median."

The 26 feet used on the Turnpike 6-lane reconstruction projects is a fully modern design.  In a rural area I would prefer at least 60 feet of graded median, but with 26 feet you get two 12-foot left shoulders and 2 feet for a concrete median barrier.

DJStephens (if I understand correctly) is based in the Las Cruces area, so I was thinking in terms of median width of at least 60 ft, which is pretty much the norm in the intermountain West.  I think that is a nonstarter in Pennsylvania, though MoDOT's preferred alternative for the widening of rural I-70 in Missouri (unfunded for over two decades and possibly permanently unfundable) involves a radical expansion of median width in rolling terrain.

What PennDOT is actually building does expand the available shoulder width as well as the traffic capacity.

Was under the impression FHWA requires a full left shoulder on cross sections of three or more lanes in one direction.  Not that it is dependent on the amount of truck traffic.   Have viewed exceptions of course - the "widening" of Interstate 10 in East El Paso, they seem to have gotten around that requirement somehow. Guessing there is a 3-4 foot distance to the left (the CBR/Jersey Barrier), and the mainlines appear to be 10 or 11 feet wide (McRae to Zaragosa).   The tex-dot in El Paso certainly seems to have struggled with the growth in the area, despite having plenty of funding in the last decade or so.   

Exceptions exist for various reasons, probably mostly due to space issues. 

When NJDOT worked on I-295, they widened the left shoulder to a full left shoulder in some areas, but not others, probably based on traffic volumes.  Of course, it's all relative: The 3 lane portion of 295 where a full paved left shoulder wasn't provided is lower in volume to other areas of I-295 where one was added, but traffic volumes would probably still dictate a 4 or 5 lane wide section in other areas of the country!

I-76 WB in NJ is 6 lanes wide, with only a full right shoulder and no left shoulder whatsoever. https://goo.gl/maps/ULWvKcVkVvWnkd2L7

So as long as the states can justify why a full shoulder isn't necessary, space-prohibitive or is cost-prohibitive, the feds are willing to allow exceptions.

WVDOH regularly omits a full-width inner shoulder on its 6-lane widening projects where there is a Jersey barrier. The only place I can think in WV that has a full-width inner shoulder is I-79 north of Clarksburg, where the road was originally built with an exceptionally wide median.

[D-Dey65]

Hey, I just found the archive for Doug Kerr's old Breezewood webpage:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080104102250/http://www.gribblenation.net/penna/breezewood/

[Crown Victoria]

PA's work zone cameras are going live next week...

https://www.readingeagle.com/news/transportation/interstate-drivers-beware-automated-ticketing-for-speeding-in-work-zones/article_f7ff170e-5d76-11ea-8f79-136c599f86d0.html